inline below.
On 30/05/2014 15:40, Anand Jain wrote:
On 29/05/14 21:29, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 05:30:25PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
when we replace the device its corresponding sysfs
entry has to be replaced as well
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 5 +++++
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
index 9f22905..f4f8728 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
#include "check-integrity.h"
#include "rcu-string.h"
#include "dev-replace.h"
+#include "sysfs.h"
static int btrfs_dev_replace_finishing(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
int scrub_ret);
@@ -562,6 +563,10 @@ static int btrfs_dev_replace_finishing(struct
btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
fs_info->fs_devices->latest_bdev = tgt_device->bdev;
list_add(&tgt_device->dev_alloc_list,
&fs_info->fs_devices->alloc_list);
+ /* replace the sysfs entry */
+ rm_device_membership(fs_info, src_device);
+ add_device_membership(fs_info, tgt_device);
+
btrfs_rm_dev_replace_blocked(fs_info);
btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev(fs_info, src_device);
569 btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked(fs_info);
570
The comment that follows says
571 /*
572 * this is again a consistent state where no dev_replace
procedure
573 * is running, the target device is part of the
filesystem, the
574 * source device is not part of the filesystem anymore and
its 1st
575 * superblock is scratched out so that it is no longer
marked to
576 * belong to this filesystem.
577 */
and I think this is the right place to put the sysfs updates, because the
srcdev is processed.
Looking into this, will update. Thanks for the review.
btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev() would destroy the btrfs_device of
src_device, and I am removing its sys/fs entry before we destroy
btrfs_device of src_device. Which is logically correct.
Further, RFC like 6/6 would depend on the btrfs_device struct,
so we have to call btrfs_kobj_rm_device() before
btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev()
Also I did some extra tests and code walk I don't see any case
which it would fail by calling btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev()
before btrfs_rm_dev_replace_srcdev().
V2 for this patch-set has been sent out.
Thanks, Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
